“Barbourfields Stadium must be named after Lookout Masuku no matter what”- commentator

Bulawayo News 24

By Stephen Jakes

16 January 2017

A political commentator and leader of the Zimbabwe Communist Party Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena has insisted that Barbourfields Stadium must be named after the late Zipra Commander Lookout Masuku following Bulawayo City Councillors’ reneging to do so as they opposed the change of historical names but only offered to honour him through naming a street after him.

Mabhena posed a question as to why the park in Bulawayo was named ‘Centenary park’.

“If we do not identify with the name or it does not make sense, we have to rename it , ‘Judith Todd Park’. She is one of us ,we must honour her but let us first Rename BF into General Lookout Masuku Stadium,” he said.

“At some point we need to find a structure and honour Senator David Coltart, the man who represented our ZIPRA cadres during Gukurahundi. We have a long list of our people we must honour, politicians, musicians , soccer stars, intellectuals, community leaders and etc. Mkhulu lumsebenzi.”

His remarks were buttressed by Melusi Vumisa who said its not about changing our history, its about recognising our heroes.

“:Judith Todd is one of us. She suffered a lot for me and you, therefore she deserves that recognition. We also have to change streets named after Robert Mugabe (President) and other Shonas. We have our own heroes to be celebrated. Mashonaland is big enough to accommodate all of them,” he said.

Collin Sibanda said “We don’t build we just destroy naming places must be done in new locations what must be changed is dictator Robert Mugabe way we don’t need it laye u Leopord Takawira the rest must remain u can’t erase history . Kanti njengoba abantu behlupheka kangaka u Lookout Masuku wayethanda iBF ukuthi ibizwe ngaye that was supposed to be done alive ! 4me Peter Ndlovu ,Adam , Rahman Gumbo , Benjamin Konjera , Maruwaru , Esrom Nyandoro etc deserve street names they’re heroes we know.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Overzealous traffic cops not good for tourism

Newsday

January 16, 2017

By Jeff Dick

I have not written to the newspaper in the 70 years that I have lived in this country.

However, I have lost my patience and sense of humour!

We recently had my daughter, son-in-law, and two grandchildren visit us over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.
It was a lovely family time. We looked forward to our final few days together, at Kariba.

I have an old Toyota Land Cruiser and trailer. I have spent considerable time and money ensuring that I was compliant with the over-strict regulations, which apply to towing trailers in this country.

On the morning of departure, my old handy person and I inspected the brake lights and indicator lights. All were working perfectly.

We were stopped five times at roadblocks for a full inspection on the way up to Kariba, and three times on the return trip.

Each time, we had to pull over, off the road and be subject to a total inspection.

On the third stop, en route to Kariba, near Karoi, we were pulled off the road, and this time, the gleeful police officer, told me that one of our brake lights on the trailer was not working. This was odd as in the two previous inspections that morning, they were fine.

My son-in-law got out of the car and assisted me in checking the brake lights. They were working well. The police officer said that he would not accept this, as when he examined the trailer, one of the lights was not working! I explained that with the extremely bumpy roads in the country that electrical connections can sometimes get loose and that both lights were now working well.

He insisted that he would fine me because when he examined them, one was not working. At that point I finally lost my cool and was threatened with arrest.

I had to pay $10 for the light “not working” and $20 for failing to sit on the side of the road while he further berated me.

Before arriving in Kariba, we were stopped a further two times for complete inspections.

On the return journey, we were stopped three times for total inspections.

On the last inspections, near Harare, I was told that I did not have sufficient triangles in my vehicle. I was not aware that I needed two sets of triangles for the vehicle and a further two sets of triangles for the trailer.
Another fine of $10.

My son-in-law and daughter live in South Africa, as obviously do my grandchildren. The way we were treated was certainly no advert for wishing to be a tourist in Zimbabwe. My grandson of five even remarked: “Why do the police hassle you so much, grandpa?”

I shall be forwarding a copy of this letter to David Coltart, whom I believe is compiling a dossier of these sort of complaints.

Hopefully, they can eventually be brought to the attention of the authorities.

Surely, a simple solution would be a mandatory check point, early on in the journey. One would then be issued with a sticker which indicates that your vehicle and trailer have been cleared for the day. That would mean one inspection per journey, which would be acceptable.

Posted in Letters | Leave a comment

Government slams critics over new curriculum

Bulawayo 24 News

15 January 2017

THE Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education says implementation of the new curriculum has been smooth so far with no challenges reported from schools, amid criticism from some individuals and teacher organisations that the process was rushed.

Implementation of the curriculum started on Tuesday last week when schools opened for the first term this year following successful piloting between May and September 2016.

In an interview, Secretary for Primary and Secondary Education Dr Sylvia Utete-Masango said implementation of the new curriculum started off well. She, however, took aim at critics, among them former education minister Mr David Coltart, who was quoted in some sections of the media expressing concern over the implementation of the new curriculum.

“I’m deeply concerned about what my successor is doing to education,” Sen Coltart was quoted saying while Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) president Mr Takavafira Zhou, in his beginning of the year message, claimed that implementation of the new curriculum had been chaotic.

“The rushed implementation of new curriculum with immediate effect has left teachers wondering where to start as the syllabi and teaching resources are not yet in schools,” he said.

Dr Utete-Masango challenged Mr Coltart and other critics to come forward with their input and not grandstand in the media.

“He (Mr Coltart) should point out exactly what is chaotic. He shouldn’t just criticise for the sake of it because he is no longer in the driver’s seat. It won’t help anyone to just criticise. Come forward with your input and we look at it,” she said.

She added that there was nothing amiss so far in the implementation of the new curriculum.

“So far there hasn’t been anything amiss. We haven’t received any reports of any challenges,” said Dr Utete-Masango.

“Right now we are busy putting together information from all our centres before coming up with a proper assessment, but so far so good.”

Dr Utete-Masango dismissed claims that syllabi and teaching resources were not yet in schools, a position that has also been backed by National Association of Primary School Heads (Naph) and National Association of Secondary School Heads (Nash) chairpersons.

The new curriculum, whose thrust is on life skills has ushered a number of changes to pupils learning process. New learning areas under the new curriculum include heritage studies, life-skills orientation programme, visual and performing arts, sport and mass displays, information and communication technology.

The new curriculum also has cross-cutting themes from infant school to Advanced Level which include gender, children’s rights, disaster risk management, financial literacy, sexuality, HIV and Aids, child protection, heritage studies, collaboration and environmental issues.

Continuous assessment is also another key component of the new curriculum where pupils’ final grade will be derived from their coursework and examination marks.

Under the new curriculum, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education introduced the national schools pledge for pupils as a way of instilling a sense of patriotism among learners.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

New boxing control board appointed

Newsday

14 January 2017

Sport and Recreation minister Makhosini Hlongwane yesterday announced a new National Boxing Control Board, with Richard Hondo bouncing back as the chairman, four years after he was shown the exit.

The appointment is likely to cause a furore in the local boxing fraternity, as Hondo is accused of presiding over the demise of the sport, until it was revived recently.

Hondo, was in charge of the board from 1980 before he was removed by then Sport minister David Coltart in 2013.

However, Hlongwane has appointed him back into office, and he will take charge for the next three years.

In a statement yesterday, Hlongwane said: “The Ministry of Sport and Recreation advises of the appointment of a new Zimbabwe National Boxing Control Board in terms of section 5 of the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act, with effect from January 12, 2017. The new board is mandated to steer the boxing sector for the duration of its tenure with an emphasis on activating and re-organising structures that enable professional boxing to thrive in Zimbabwe, promoting the participation of women in professional boxing, resource mobilisation for the professional boxing sector, raising the profile of professional boxing in Zimbabwe and efficiently assisting boxers, promoters, managers and officials in the discharge of their duties.”

Former Zimbabwe light and middleweight boxer, Mordecai Donga and boxing trainer Thomas Kambuyi have also been roped into the new board.

Environmental Management Agency board chair Zenzo Nsimbi, Stella Motsi and Sipho Helen M’nyamana Rutsate complete the six-member board.

The new board replaces the one that was headed by Paul Nenjerama, whose term expired at the end of the year.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

The Struggle Continues by David Coltart — becoming Zimbabwe – a Financial Times Review

The Financial Times

History Section

By Michael Holman

13th January 2017

An insider’s account of Robert Mugabe’s regime is also a brave act of defiance

What is it about southern Africa that creates so many moral heavyweights? It seems that adversity and repression in that part of the world stimulate rather than inhibit, and bring out the best in its citizens in response to the worst in its rulers. Hence the region’s Nobel Prize winners and feisty clerics, outspoken parliamentarians and courageous activists.

Whatever the reason for the disproportionate number of these men and women, all prepared to confront power with truth, David Coltart, a 59-year-old Zimbabwe-born civil rights lawyer, deserves to join their ranks.

The Struggle Continues is not only a comprehensive indictment of Robert Mugabe’s brutal regime, and the white minority governments that preceded it. This is a magnificent, monumental, two-fingered act of defiance by an extraordinarily brave man, made all the more remarkable by the fact that nearly all the main culprits from Mugabe’s era are still alive — and that the author and his family still live in the southern Zimbabwean city of Bulawayo.

If a single theme emerges, it is Coltart’s belief that the rule of law and the principles of democracy will one day triumph, ending decades of tyranny imposed by Zimbabwe’s rulers, past and present, white as well as black. After digesting his book, it seems clear, alas, that it will be a very long wait.

What Coltart calls “an autobiographical political history of Zimbabwe’s last six decades” begins with a lyrical description of a “blissful” childhood, albeit one that — as he readily acknowledges — was “oblivious to the reality of life for most black Rhodesians”. He was still in his teens when political reality intruded in the form of the deepening confrontation between African nationalism and white resistance. A nightmare began.

Coltart, born in 1957, was just 17 when he chose to enrol in the police force rather than wait until the army would conscript him. Within two years he was on the front line of Rhodesia’s guerrilla war, the consequence of prime minister Ian Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence from Britain in 1965.

Initially sympathetic to Smith, Coltart’s experience in the bush was life-changing. Above all, he learnt that “various interrogation methods, such as the use of waterboarding and electric shock treatment, were used to extract information from guerrillas. Bar talk in the mess,” he writes, “was full of gory detail of how guerrillas had ‘sung’ after being tortured . . . War had exposed wholesale depravity on all sides, and I was being sucked into it, relentlessly . . . Although I was aged just nineteen at the time, I am ashamed that I did not do more then to prevent its use or speak out against it.”

Granted permission to leave the police and take up a place at the University of Cape Town, he had his first encounter with Robert Mugabe, leader of Zanu-PF, victor in the 1980 independence elections and the new prime minister of Zimbabwe. In a telegram responding to a letter from Coltart, by then a supporter of the new government, we meet Mugabe the magnanimous, committing to “a policy of reconciliation whereby our people must put aside the hatreds and animosities of the past”. Inspired by this promise, Coltart returned to Zimbabwe to set up as a human rights lawyer.

He soon discovered that the country was beginning to “unravel”. Apartheid-era South Africa was determined to make life difficult for its neighbour, launching a sabotage campaign and supporting dissident former guerrillas. Mugabe the magnanimous soon became Mugabe the despot, planning the subjugation of the southern province, stronghold then as now of opposition.

To his horror, Coltart discovered that torture in the new Zimbabwe remained systemic. This time, however, he did not remain silent. Some readers may find that his exhaustive account of how he went on to enter Zimbabwe’s brutal political arena tests their interest in a far-off land. They should read on. His account of his journey into parliament as an opposition MP, becoming a respected minister of education in a government of national unity, is more than an insider’s account of the machinations of power: it is a blow-by-blow analysis of Zimbabwe’s decline towards a failing state, with endemic corruption and a ruling party determined to retain power at all costs. There is, however, a puzzling omission: there is not a reference to the destructive and bitter rivalry between the country’s Shona majority and the Ndebele of the south.

As for Mugabe, he emerges as an enigma. Coltart records the president’s solicitous inquiry after the health of his daughter Bethany after she had been mauled by a caged lion. At the end of a cabinet meeting Mugabe took him aside to ask after her welfare: “He appeared genuinely concerned about her.”

It was “ironic”, notes Coltart, “given that operatives under his jurisdiction had done their best to kill me in Bethany’s presence seven years earlier”.

Politics in Zimbabwe is a strange as well as a nasty business.

Michael Holman is a former Africa editor for the FT

The Struggle Continues: 50 Years of Tyranny in Zimbabwe, by David Coltart, Jacana Media, RRP£19.95, 682 pages

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe backs down on tariff hikes

Techcentral.co.za

13 January 2017

Zimbabwe’s telecommunications regulator has backed down over new floor prices for telecoms services, resulting in the country’s largest operator, Econet, reversing large price increases announced earlier in the week.

Zimbabwe’s telecommunications regulator has backed down over new floor prices for telecoms services, resulting in the country’s largest operator, Econet Wireless, reversing large price increases announced earlier in the week.

In a statement, the country’s ICT minister, Supa Mandiwanzira, said he had “conversed” with the regulator, Potraz, and that the tariffs would be scrapped.

In the statement, published by Techzim, a Zimbabwean technology news site, Mandiwanzira said: “I have been told that the new prices were actually proposed by the mobile operators to the regulator. While it is conceivable that the price of data may go up, the margin by which the prices have gone up is shockingly high and can only reflect insensitivity to fellow Zimbabweans and gluttonous corporate greed.”

President Robert Mugabe’s government had been accused of using the new regulated floor prices as a way of making it unaffordable for Zimbabweans to use social media.

Potraz this week began enforcing the new floor prices for both voice and data, arguing the regulations were necessary to protect the sustainability of mobile operators.

But the new regulations came under fire, with opposition politician David Coltart, for example, blasting the new rules. “Data bundles have gone up by 2 500% in Zimbabwe, directed by the regime — presumably, and unconstitutionally, to stifle the use of social media,” Coltart tweeted.

Last year, Zimbabweans used social media actively to criticise Mugabe’s Zanu-PF regime, under the hashtag “#ThisFlag”.

The protests were started by a pastor, Evan Mawarire, who posted a series of YouTube videos in which he expressed his love for Zimbabwe and expressed his frustration with the government.

In his statement, issued on Thursday evening, Madiwanzira said: “Internet is now a key driver of economic growth — innovation, entrepreneurship and government service delivery. Internet access is at the centre of all development. It, therefore, follows that it must be accessible — physically and financially.

“I share and sympathise with concerns expressed by a multitude of Zimbabwean Internet users that the recently effected data prices are unparalleled and extortionist.

“Given the astronomical rates that have been charged over the last two days, it may be necessary and morally correct to get the concerned mobile networks to refund their subscribers.”

But Econet — the only operator to implement price increases in terms of the Potraz regulations — hit back at critics.

“It became apparent after implementing the Potraz directive that Econet Wireless was the only operator which had complied with the data floor pricing,” it said in a statement.

“It is clear that, for whatever reason, the other operators had not complied with the directive and therefore there can never be a level playing field when our customers are the only ones being affected by this position.

“This is not the first time that Econet has complied and the other operators have not complied,” it said. — (c) 2017 NewsCentral Media

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe accused of stifling social media

Techcentral.co.za

11 January 2017

Robert Mugabe’s government has been accused of using new regulated floor prices for telecommunications services as a way of making it unaffordable for Zimbabweans to use social media.

The country’s telecommunications regulator, Potraz, this week began enforcing the new floor prices for both voice and data, arguing the regulations are necessary to protect the sustainability of mobile operators.

A number of African countries, including Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have experimented with similar regulations, also allegedly in an effort to protect against damaging competition.

Zimbabwean technology publication Techzim said that from 9 January, voice tariffs have been set at a minimum of US$0,12/minute (R1,65/minute), while data for all bundles has to be a minimum of $0,02/MB (28c/MB, or R286/GB).

The result is that data bundles have become more expensive in a country where GDP per capita in 2015 was estimated at just $1 688 (South Africa: $7 575).

Potraz director-general Gift Kallisto Machengete justified the move as a way of maintaining a balance between service affordability and the viability of mobile operators, according to Techzim.

“Potraz’s aim is to keep the price of data as low as possible while ensuring sustainability of the sector and protection of consumers,” Machengete is quoted as saying.

But the new regulations have come under fire. Opposition politician David Coltart blasted the new rules on Twitter. “Data bundles have gone up by 2 500% in Zimbabwe, directed by the regime — presumably, and unconstitutionally, to stifle the use of social media,” he tweeted.

Coltart described the action as “unjustifiable economically” and “designed to stifle freedom of expression and access to information”. He said the new tariffs are “unaffordable”.

Last year, Zimbabweans used social media actively to criticise Mugabe’s Zanu-PF regime, under the hashtag “#ThisFlag”. The protests were started by a pastor, Evan Mawarire, who posted a series of YouTube videos in which he expressed his love for Zimbabwe and expressed his frustration with the government.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Dokora curriculum review disastrous: Coltart

Newsday

9 January 2017

By Silas Nkala

FORMER Education minister, David Coltart has rapped his successor, Lazarus Dokora, for causing chaos in the education sector by haphazardly introducing far-reaching policy changes without consulting key stakeholders.

Coltart said the newly-launched education curriculum, which comes into effect tomorrow, was likely to throw the sector into disarray, as it was introduced at short notice and without prior consultation with educators.

“I’m deeply concerned about what my successor is doing to education,” he said.

Coltart’s remarks came after Progressive Teachers’ Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) last week blasted Dokora for rushing to implement the new curriculum without proper consultations with stakeholders.

His sentiments were also echoed by Zimbabwe Christian Alliance leader, Useni Sibanda, who called for parents and all stakeholders to resist the new curriculum.

“Dokora rushed to implement the curriculum, this needs to be opposed by citizens. These are our children, we need to have a thorough input into what will be taught,” Sibanda said.

PTUZ president, Takavafira Zhou, last week, blasted Dokora over the same issue, arguing the move had put schools in a dilemma, given the little time left before the new term starts.

He argued the new curriculum was complex and involved new technologies for all schools, when the majority of institutions in the rural areas lack the requisite infrastructure and most teachers were not computer literate.

“This move is not only intransigent and callous, but also a monumental injustice, impermeable to reason and facts.
Fundamentally, the syllabi are not readily available in schools. The teaching material or textbooks for the new curricula are not readily available, yet there are completely new subjects that have been introduced such as Heritage Studies and Economic History,” Zhou said.

Parents also berated Dokora, describing him as clueless on how to run a key government department such as education.

John Stewart said Zanu PF ministers always tended to impose their opinions on the general citizenry.

Fortunate Dube described Dokora as “bad news to Zimbabwe’s education”.

“The worst of them all since 1980. Senseless. No textbooks for that new curriculum, no preparation for teachers for that new curriculum. How are they going to implement it effectively? His head needs to be examined immediately otherwise he will drag down the whole education system with him. It’s time to stop him before he becomes a serious fool,” he said.

Dokora is not new to controversy as he caused a storm last year when he imposed the national pledge on pupils.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Sikhala relates on oppression of whites by Zimbabwean government

Bulawayo 24 News

By Stephen Jakes

7 January 2017

MDC-T senior official Job Wiwa Sikhala has related on how the Zimbabwean government resorted to harassing and oppression white Zimbabweans leading most of them to leave the country resulting to the economic crisis currently rocking the nation.

“The incident that made me feel pity for white Zimbabweans, is that it was sometime in the 2000s when the toxic Zanu PF politics of racial discrimination and incitement of hatred against white Zimbabweans was at its peak that I was one of those who sat silently in Parliament listening to Paul Mangwana who was chosen to be the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee to investigate on the misconduct of Roy Bennett after his altercation with the then Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Patrick Chinamasa,” Sikhala wrote on his Facebook post.

“The altercation is sometimes reported with exaggerated superlatives to paint a picture of a rogue Boer in Roy Bennett even though Roy is not a Boer. The scuffle having been provoked by Chinamasa’s derogatory answer to Bennett’s question in parliament on how the former white commercial farmers will be compensated for the improvements made in commercial farms and how far the government has gone to complete the investigations on the murder of several commercial farmers such as Stevens.”

He said rather than answering the question Chinamasa went all over the place insulting Bennett and his ancestors that he had no right whatsoever to ask him such a question which Chinamasa described as silly because Bennett’s ancestors were murderers and that this government had no business to protect descendants of murderers.

“Bennett was told by some other MPs seated next to him that Chinamasa’s insults have gone beyond normal expectations that if ever such words were uttered to them they would have long assaulted him. In a blink of an eye Bennett aggressively left his seat charging towards Chinamasa. On his way charging to Chinamasa, Didymus Mutasa kicked Bennett by the buttocks and Bennett pushed Chinamasa and told him off. The push was extremely minimal. The joke of what we used to see in the Sri Lankan Parliament or Indian Parliament or even the South African Parliament since the emergency of EFF,” he said.

“Few days later Chinamasa moved a motion in Parliament for the institution of a Parliamentary Committee to investigate whether Bennett’s conduct had violated the Parliamentary Rules and Orders. Paul Mangwana was appointed the Chairperson of the Committee which was congested with Zanu PF persons. The MDC was represented by Prof Welshman Ncube and the Parliamentary Chief Whip Innocent Gonese.”

Sikhala said Paul Mangwana after a long time of about 8 months came back to present the verdict of his Committee to Parliament where his Committee asked Parliament to sit as a court to pass a custodial sentence to Bennett.

“Mangwana spoke as if Bennett was responsible for all the deaths and violence that took place in the country since 1890 to that day. Bennett was portrayed as the villain of all. Mangwana was in an overzealous and pompous mood on the day in question. He retrieved all superlatives to describe how evil Bennett was and the need of our society to confine him to prison with hard labour so as to send a clear message to would be white offenders of Bennett’s mental disposition,” he said.

“We might hate him or like him, Tendai Biti on this particular gave one of the most polished legal presentation. In his contribution when the debate was brought to the floor Biti presented a long narrative of our history and the position of law when an institution like Parliament is faced with such a problem. It was a refined oral mitigation that brought the best out of the man. His presentation is one of the best I heard from him. When David Coltart came in to give a passionate narration of the history of violence in our country since 1890 through to the Smith regime via Gukurahundi and the 1999 to 2000s violence the House kept quiet for sometimes to ponder. The two lawyers gave memorable defence to Bennett while in the same vein where explicitly exposing Zanu PF hypocrisy.”

He said despite pleas of justice to be exercised in the matter, the hard hearts of Zanu PF could not be turned.

“They wanted the man to be eliminated from the political radar. They wanted him nowhere except behind bars. When we final went for the vote Zanu PF was already singing and ululating. Some where already demanding for his labour in their seized farms. Some were saying he should die. Others started to mock him. I saw and personally witnessed Pauline Gwanyanya, Priscilla Misihairambwi Mushonga and Edith Matamisa crying. We silently moved out of Parliament to our homes in anger and anguish,” he said.

“It was difficult and hard to take. I have never witnessed such anger in my life. Words that were said by Zanu PF against Zimbabwean whites are unprintable to this day. Even their mother ‘s private parts were described in jubilation. They were swearing that they will not rest until all whites were driven out of Zimbabwe. Some were even saying that they will have a good time with Bennett’s wife or rape her while he is in prison. Others said they will never ever allow him to be brought food in prison. Some saying boys will ravage his back in prison. Others urging him to prepare napkins as he will be impregnated in prison. I have never come across such. Even the worst sinner has rights.”

Sikhala said having fought for equality in modern Zimbabwe he wonder where Roy is?

“Is there anyone with information where this brave man is? What is in his mind? Has he paid his back on Zimbabwe?” he said.

My postscript – Roy Bennett is alive and well. He is farming in Zambia with his family and by all accounts is very productive. Zambia’s gain and our loss

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

The last days of Robert Mugabe

The New Statesman

By Martin Fletcher

1 January 2017

Zimbabwe is engulfed, and not only by a political crisis. While its leaders fight, its economy is in meltdown.

With considerable trepidation, I took the lift to the sixth floor of the ministry of justice in central Harare to interview the minister. It wasn’t just that I lacked the accreditation foreign journalists must obtain to work in Zimbabwe – the interview had been arranged through unofficial back channels. The minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, also happens to be the vice-president, Robert Mugabe’s notoriously brutal chief enforcer for the past 36 years, and the most feared man in the country. “They don’t call him ‘The Crocodile’ for nothing,” said a Zimbabwean businessman who knows him well. “He never says a word but suddenly he bites. He’s very dangerous.”

But Mnangagwa, still powerfully built at 74, proved courteous enough as we sat in deep leather armchairs in his bright and spacious office. It was not in his interest to be hostile – not at this time. He is determined to succeed Mugabe and he will need Western support to rebuild his shattered country if he does, which is presumably why he gave me an almost unprecedented interview.

Aged 92 and the world’s oldest head of state, Robert Mugabe is fading. He falls asleep in meetings, suffers memory lapses and stumbles on steps. He delivered the wrong speech at the opening of parliament in September last year and had to deliver the right one to a specially convened session the following day. As long ago as 2008 a WikiLeaks cable from the US ambassador reported that he had terminal prostate cancer, and he frequently flies to Singapore for unspecified medical treatment – blood transfusions, perhaps, or steroid injections. A diplomatic source talked of Mugabe’s “dramatic deterioration in the last two years”, and said: “He could go at any point.”

Mnangagwa did not admit he wants to be president, of course. Given Mugabe’s paranoia, that would have been political suicide. On the contrary, he was studiously loyal. When I asked which politician he most admired he immediately replied: “The president.” He refused to discuss the possibility of Mugabe dying. “Under British constitutional law you don’t conceive or desire the demise of Your Majesty. Why would you want to conceive or desire the demise of my president?” he asked. He even denied that he would seek Mugabe’s job when, to borrow the euphemism with which some Zimbabweans refer to the coming cataclysm, “the portrait falls off the wall”.

“I don’t see myself doing that,” he said. Of the decades he had worked with Mugabe, he said, “I was not serving to be president. I was serving my country.”

Nobody will believe Mnangagwa’s denial – certainly not close allies such as Christopher Mutsvangwa, a former Zimbabwean ambassador to China and the leader of the “war veterans” who seized the country’s white-owned farms in the 2000s.

I had met Mutsvangwa a few days earlier in the unlikely setting of a coffee shop in the affluent Harare suburb of Mount Pleasant. It was another encounter between a senior regime figure and a Western journalist of a sort that is becoming increasingly possible in the turbulence of Mugabe’s twilight days. Mutsvangwa told me he was “100 per cent” sure that Mnangagwa would be Zimbabwe’s next president. Indeed, he and other allies of the vice-president are already locked in a vicious struggle over the succession with Mnangagwa’s potential rivals in the ruling Zanu-PF party.

Grace Mugabe, 51, the president’s intensely ambitious and avaricious wife, set things going in late 2014 after her husband made her the head of Zanu-PF’s Women’s League and a member of the party’s Politburo. She persuaded Mugabe to expel the previous vice-president, Joice Mujuru, and her supporters from the party for allegedly plotting against the president. Mujuru – who as a teenage guerrilla during Zimbabwe’s war of independence in the 1970s gave birth in the bush, shot down a helicopter with a rifle and earned the nom de guerre Teurai Ropa (“Spill Blood”) – has now set up an opposition party, Zimbabwe People First (ZPF).

Having disposed of Mujuru, Grace and a group of “Young Turks” known as Generation 40, or G40, then turned their attention to Mnangagwa, seeking to oust him as vice-president and purge his supporters from critical posts in Zanu-PF. Grace made no secret of her ambitions, flying round the country in the presidential helicopter to address “meet the people” rallies. “They say I want to be president. Why not? Am I not Zimbabwean?” she asked. To give herself gravitas, she acquired a PhD from the University of Zimbabwe in three months; the degree was presented to her by the chancellor – her husband.

But Mnangagwa has his own cabal of older party members who fought in the liberation war and despise the G40 “upstarts”, who did not – Mutsvangwa calls them “power-grabbers” and “village head boys”. His so-called Lacoste faction (the clothing company’s emblem is a crocodile) has hit back hard, using Mnangagwa’s control of Zimbabwe’s Anti-Corruption Commission to launch high-profile criminal investigations against G40 leaders. For good measure, Mutsvangwa’s war vets have turned on Mugabe himself. In July they issued a communiqué condemning his “dictatorial tendencies . . . which have slowly devoured the values of the liberation struggle”. In November they sacked him as their patron.

A secret Zanu-PF document passed to me by a reliable source shows how sulphurous the infighting has become. Emanating from Mnangagwa’s camp, it accuses G40 of plotting “political euthanasia” against the party’s founding generation and of “coercing the First Lady into a spirited campaign against VP Mnangagwa”.

The document suggests Mugabe himself created G40 because, behind his “feigned love” for his deputy, he “has always felt threatened by VP Mnangagwa and the prospect of his presidency being outshined by that of his protégé”.

The nine-page document then sets out a detailed plan to destroy G40’s leaders through “brutal character assassination”, fomenting “fights and chaos” within the group, and sowing “seeds of distrust” between G40 and Grace Mugabe.

In short, the party that has governed Zimbabwe since 1980 is sundered as never before. Beneath the bright-blue jacaranda and orange flamboyant trees that shade Harare’s broad avenues, vendors hawk newspapers that gleefully proclaim “Crunch time for Zanu-PF factions”, “Zanu-PF implodes” and “Blood on the floor”. “They’re at each other’s throats and it’s not unlikely it will end in a violent confrontation,” Ibbo Mandaza, a political analyst in Harare, told me.

In the 2000s Robert Mugabe destroyed agriculture, the mainstay of the Zimbabwean economy, by seizing farms owned by whites and giving them to his cronies. Now the country’s industrial base is collapsing for lack of investment: it imports twice as much as it exports. The international financial institutions will lend the regime no more money without root-and-branch reforms and repayment of its $1.8bn arrears. Having abandoned its national currency in 2009, when inflation reached 500 billion per cent, Zimbabwe is quite literally running out of the US dollars that it has used for cash ever since.

“It’s a disaster of the worst order. We are in an economic recession that’s fast-tracking itself into an economic depression,” said Tendai Biti, an outspoken lawyer and opposition politician who served as finance minister for the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe’s ill-fated government of national unity between 2008 and 2013. “The regime can rig elections but they can’t rig the economy,” he said, as we chatted in his cluttered office in central Harare.

The government’s response to the liquidity crisis has been to issue bond notes as a surrogate currency – a move likely to make matters even worse. Nobody trusts the Monopoly-type notes, which look like ordinary currency and carry the words “Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe”. They believe the Treasury will print them with the same reckless abandon with which it printed Zimbabwean dollars in the late 2000s. Those who can are rapidly moving their US dollars out of the country, accentuating the cash shortage. Zimbabwe is bracing itself for a return of hyperinflation, fuel shortages and empty supermarket shelves.

The manifestations of economic collapse are already apparent. Driving around central Harare, I saw outside every bank the long queues that form before dawn each day because withdrawals are now limited to $50 or less per person per diem. The industrial estates of southern Harare are full of shuttered and closed-down factories: John Robertson, an economist based in Harare, reckons the industrial base has contracted 65 per cent since 2000. In a country where unemployment exceeds 80 per cent, street vendors, beggars and – at night – teenage prostitutes proliferate. The small number of adults who are employed mostly work in a public sector bloated by “ghost jobs” reserved for Zanu-PF supporters.

In rural areas the situation is even worse. Ben Freeth, a white farmer who was forcibly evicted by the war vets in 2009, sneaked me in to Mount Carmel, his family’s former property 110 kilometres west of Harare. He showed me the barren fields where maize and sunflowers once grew in abundance, and the dying mango and citrus orchards that used to produce 1,200 tonnes of fruit a year. The farm’s 2,400 hectares were commandeered by a then cabinet minister, Nathan Shamuyarira; today they yield nothing.

Freeth now farms 100 acres of rented land, but his former workers have suffered far worse than he has. We met some of them in the ruins of Freeth’s home that the war vets torched. They had no money, no food, no running water or electricity. They could no longer afford to send their children to school. Though it was planting season, they could not afford seeds to grow maize. “It was a good life, but now we’re starving,” Peter Asani, Freeth’s old foreman, said.

We drove on to the nearby town of Chegutu, which is dominated by 12 towering silos, each capable of holding 5,000 tonnes of grain. An employee told us just one was full, though the harvest had only recently ended and Chegutu is surrounded by some of Zimbabwe’s richest farmland. Instead, workers were unloading a goods train bringing maize from neighbouring Mozambique. “This used to be the grain basket of southern Africa, and here we are importing maize to prevent us starving,” Freeth said.

We stopped at the David Whitehead textiles factory, which once employed 4,000 people but closed in 2012. Today a few gaunt men are guarding the premises. They are paid four loaves of bread a day by the owners, and pass the time playing draughts with bottle tops on cardboard. They turn up in the forlorn hope that they will be first in the queue for jobs, should the factory ever reopen, and because there is no other work. “If I don’t do this what else would I do?” one of the men said.

Zimbabweans are mostly gentle, passive people, but even their capacity for stoic endurance has limits. Last spring and summer Harare witnessed protests on a scale the country had seldom seen before. Bypassing the splintered and ineffectual opposition parties, activists used Facebook and Whats­App to harness public anger and channel it into a succession of one-day strikes and street demonstrations, some of them attended by thousands.

“Social media is the government’s worst nightmare. It has completely changed the dynamics,” Promise Mkwananzi, a 35-year-old dissident who leads a protest movement called Tajamuka (“Outraged”), told me over coffee. A few days later he was arrested for the third time this year.

Fearing a “Zimbabwe spring”, the regime has detained dozens of leading activists. It hastily installed a senior intelligence officer as head of POTRAZ, the state agency that regulates the country’s mobile networks. It drafted legislation banning the use of social media to destabilise the country. It has even outlawed displays of the national flag after another protest group, #ThisFlag, co-opted it as its symbol.

The government has also resorted to its default tactic: violence. At 1am on 17 Nov­ember, the security forces abducted Patson Dzamara, an organiser of a protest against bond notes and corruption planned for later that day; at 9am that same morning I found Dzamara lying on a gurney at the Avenues Clinic in Harare with a huge swelling on the back of his head and vivid red weals across his back. He told me how three cars had blocked his own at a junction, two in front and one behind. The occupants then opened fire, burned his vehicle, and beat him for 20 minutes before driving him away – blindfolded – in a van.

“The only thing they said to me was, ‘You didn’t learn from what we did to your brother and now it’s your turn,’” said Dzamara, whose older brother Itai was abducted last year and never seen again. But instead of killing Dzamara, they dumped him naked by a road, telling him: “You’re lucky. You were supposed to die today.” A passing motorist took him to a service station, where he telephoned for help.

I left the clinic to find riot police backed by water cannon occupying the city’s streets. After word of Dzamara’s abduction spread on social media, fear prevailed and the protest fizzled out, leaving activists despondent. “We’re never going to have a successful protest in Zimbabwe again,” said Linda Masarire, a former train driver and widowed mother of five children who was jailed for 84 days last summer.

However, the government faces an increasingly grave problem of its own. It is running out of money to pay the security forces on which it depends for its survival, and the people’s anger is spreading to rank-and-file soldiers and policemen.

In the privacy of my car, one soldier who was hitchhiking near the town of Gutu, 225 kilometres south of Harare, complained bitterly about being poorly fed and paid late, how his family was struggling to survive, and how the army told him how to vote. It was time for Mugabe to go, he said.

Tendai Biti told me how, during one protest last summer, he was chased down by an unmarked vehicle whose occupants told him: “We’ve been sent to arrest you, so please run away.” Biti said: “It’s only their bosses that are eating. They’re not.”

The war veterans’ leader Christopher Mutsvangwa readily acknowledged that one reason why his 30,000 members had rounded on Robert Mugabe was that “there’s nothing to bribe us with any more. The economy is finished.”

I asked Mutsvangwa whether Mugabe should step down. “We need to have a new look at the management of the economy,” he said. “Since he’s the elected president he has to either deliver on that or make it possible for someone else to deliver on it. We would hope it’s the latter.”

He did not name Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa, but it was obvious whom he had in mind.

Over lunch at his charming old home in rural Sussex a few years ago, Denis Norman, a white farmer who served in three of Mugabe’s cabinets between 1980 and 1997, told me of his last meeting with the president after losing his farm and before he left for Britain in 2003.

“I asked: ‘Where did it all go wrong?’ He replied: ‘Has it gone wrong?’ I said: ‘I know it’s gone wrong. You know it’s gone wrong.’ He paused before replying, softly: ‘It’s not going right, is it?’”

The anecdote captures the tragedy of Robert Mugabe – the architect of Zimbabwe’s independence who has reduced it to penury; the guerrilla leader who freed his country from white-minority rule only to subject it to far greater repression.

Mugabe grew up a village 100 kilometres from Harare. His father, a carpenter, abandoned the family when he was ten. The principal of the local mission school, an Irish Jesuit priest named Father Jerome O’Hea, nurtured him instead.

Mugabe trained as a teacher; at Fort Hare University in South Africa he encountered the black nationalism sweeping across Africa. He went to teach in Ghana, which had just won independence from Britain, and there he married his first wife, Sally.

In 1960 the couple returned to Rhodesia, as Zimbabwe was called then. Mugabe joined its liberation struggle, became secretary general of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu) and was imprisoned for nearly 11 years. Ian Smith’s government refused to release him even for the funeral of his infant son. He took several degrees through correspondence courses with the University of London and gave lessons to his fellow prisoners. Released in 1974, he fled to neighbouring Mozambique, where he orchestrated the guerrilla war against white-minority rule in Rhodesia.

In 1979 Mugabe attended the Lancaster House peace talks in London that led to independence. He was “secretive, seemed not to need friends, mistrusted everyone. Devious and clever, he was the archetypal cold fish,” said Lord Carrington, the British foreign secretary who chaired those talks.

He returned home from London a hero and duly won Zimbabwe’s first democratic elections in 1980. At first he confounded his critics. He allowed Ian Smith to remain in Zimbabwe, and, learning from what had happened in Mozambique after the Portuguese left in 1975, Mugabe urged white Zimbabweans to stay and rebuild the country, which had been destroyed by 15 years of war and sanctions. He built schools and hospitals for black Zimbabweans and encouraged agriculture.

The new president appeared to display no animosity towards Zimbabwe’s former colonial masters. He sought Britain’s help to forge a new national army. He formed a surprising friendship with Lord Soames, the last British governor of Rhodesia, and rebuked his cabinet for celebrating when Margaret Thatcher was deposed in November 1990. “Who organised our independence?” he asked them. “Let me tell you – if it hadn’t been for Mrs Thatcher none of you would be here today. I’m sorry she’s gone.”

Mugabe was an Anglophile who adored the royal family, and urged Denis Norman to invite Prince Edward to open Zimbabwe’s Royal Agricultural Show. He encouraged Zimbabweans to play cricket because it “civilises people and creates good gentlemen”. He read the Economist, wore Savile Row suits, and upbraided his first cabinet for dressing inappropriately: “If you wish to remain as ministers I expect you to dress as ministers.” A frugal, ascetic man, he rose before dawn, worked long days, ate simple food and neither smoked nor drank.

There was, however, a darker side to this apparently model leader. What the world did not see, or chose not to see, was his crushing of Joshua Nkomo’s opposition Zapu party in the mainly Ndebele-speaking Matabeleland region. Mugabe’s North Korea-trained and predominantly Shona Fifth Brigade razed villages, tortured and raped, killing an estimated 20,000 Ndebele civilians in Operation Gukurahundi (gukurahundi is the Shona expression for “the early rains that wash away the chaff”).

Mugabe’s relations with white Zimbabweans began to sour when they backed Ian Smith’s Republican Front Party in the 1985 parliamentary elections. He sacked Norman as minister of agriculture. “He wrote me a note saying he had no place for me because he had offered the hand of friendship to the farming community, and they obviously didn’t appreciate what he and I had done for them, so he was going to give them a black minister,” Norman told me.

In 1992 Sally Mugabe died of kidney failure. He lost a “great stabiliser and calming influence”, Norman said. “She was the one person he could actually confide in, someone who could keep him on a level plane.” In 2008 I visited her grave in Heroes Acre, a monument to Zimbabwe’s independence fighters on Harare’s western fringe. Fresh flowers lay on the black marble. My guide said Mugabe brought them every week, early in the morning when no one was around.

In 1996 he married Grace, a State House secretary 41 years his junior, with whom he already had two children from an affair that began before Sally’s death. Grace was Sally’s polar opposite, and under her influence the other side of Mugabe’s personality – the African strongman – gained ascendancy. Their wedding ceremony was attended by 12,000 guests. The couple built a mansion set in 44 landscaped acres in the affluent Harare suburb of Borrowdale. Mugabe celebrated his birthdays with increasingly lavish parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. His popularity began to fade.

In 2000 the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), a new opposition party led by Morgan Tsvangirai, defeated a constitutional referendum that would have increased Mugabe’s powers. He responded by unleashing the war vets, who seized thousands of white-owned farms over the next few years in an orgy of drunken violence and retribution.

The seizures served the president’s political purposes well. They punished the farmers, many of whom had backed the MDC morally and materially, and dispersed and destroyed a reservoir of a million potential MDC voters among the black farmworkers and their dependants.

In every other way they were a disaster. Zimbabwe’s economy, heavily dependent on agriculture, collapsed. Food production plunged. Factories, hospitals and schools closed. The government responded by printing ever more money, fuelling such rampant inflation that prices were doubling every 24 hours. At one point the Reserve Bank issued a note worth Z$100 trillion.

Mugabe resorted to yet greater repression. In 2005 he destroyed the homes and livelihoods of 700,000 restive slum-dwellers in Operation Murambatsvina (‘‘clean up filth’’). He neutered the judiciary and ­independent media. He stole the 2008 presidential election so blatantly and violently that not one other African head of state attended his swearing-in. Britain withdrew his honorary knighthood, and he was forced into a power-sharing agreement with the MDC.

The “government of national unity” restored fiscal sanity but it also allowed Zanu-PF to regroup. By 2013 the world’s attention had moved on. Using subtler methods – bribery, intimidation, control of the electoral roll – Mugabe stole that year’s general election, too, and Zimbabwe returned to one-party rule. An “indigenisation” law requiring majority black ownership of large companies further deterred the investment that Zimbabwe’s struggling industries desperately needed to retool and boost exports. There was no currency to devalue. “We sabotaged our own productive capacity,” said the economist John Robertson.

Mugabe inherited a country that, for all its faults, was blessed with fine infrastructure, functioning institutions, a benign climate and fertile soil. Today it is a failed state in all but name: a nation of hawkers, foragers and scavengers. A quarter of the population has left; in other words, more Zimbabweans now work overseas than at home. The average monthly household income is $62. Life expectancy is 55 years, one of the lowest in the world. Four million of Zim­babwe’s 14 million people survive on food aid, and a quarter of its children are stunted by malnutrition.

The country’s hospitals can no longer afford painkillers for major operations. Its embassies cannot pay their rent and utility bills. Its national airline can no longer fly to Heathrow, because of outstanding debts. It sells its elephants, giraffes and other wildlife to China. Beyond its urban centres, the country has reverted from tractors to ox-drawn ploughs, light bulbs to candles, the wheel to foot, cash to barter.

It is also corrupt from top to bottom, ranking 150th out of 168 in Transparency International’s global corruption index. By Mugabe’s own admission, its leaders have siphoned $15bn from the Marange diamond fields in the east since 2008 – four times Zimbabwe’s annual budget. Several times I was stopped at police checkpoints whose purpose was not to enforce law and order but to fleece motorists. I was fined once for not having honeycomb reflectors on the front of my rental car, and a second time for not coming to a complete stop at a junction. “The whole system is infested with leeches sucking the remaining blood from the rotten corpse of Zimbabwe,” a white businessman told me.

Mugabe no longer mingles with the ordinary Zimbabweans whom he claims to champion. He lives behind high walls in his heavily guarded mansion. A bomb-proof Mercedes carries him to State House along the only well-maintained roads left in the capital. His motorcade includes two decoy Mercedes, an ambulance and truckloads of soldiers. Police outriders clear the traffic and use the butts of their AK-47s to bludgeon dawdlers. Making gestures at the president is a criminal offence.

He survives in office – his sole concern – by playing off one Zanu-PF faction against another. He rents his lieutenants’ loyalty by letting them plunder the country. He uses hunger as a weapon by swapping food aid for support. “Mugabe has an insatiable thirst for power. I’ve never come across another human being who worships power like that man,” Biti told me.

Mugabe has already declared his intention to fight the next election in 2018. Few believe he will ever step down voluntarily. Three times this year he is said to have thwarted efforts by regional leaders to discuss his retirement, abruptly cancelling a visit to Ghana in August when he learned the issue was on the agenda. He rebuffed attempts by his military commanders to raise the matter during the summer protests.

“He has no friends, no hobbies, no in­terests,” said a Zimbabwean businessman who has dealt directly with Mugabe. “The only thing he has is a political persona. Without that, he’s nothing, and for that reason he will not voluntarily surrender his power. He will die with his boots on in his office.”

If that is so, Mugabe’s final legacy to Zimbabwe will be his failure to provide for an orderly succession. Instead, he will bequeath to it an unprecedented and dangerous power vacuum.

Predictions of Robert Mugabe’s imminent death should be treated warily. David Coltart, a white opposition politician, notes that the president’s mother lived beyond 100, and that for twenty years British and American ambassadors have arrived in Harare expecting Mugabe to die on their watch, only to leave disappointed.

He still maintains a punishing travel schedule, and attended Fidel Castro’s funeral early in December. Many Zimbabweans believed that he had died when his plane inexplicably diverted to Dubai in September. “Yes, it’s true I was dead. I resurrected as I always do,” Mugabe taunted the premature celebrants on his return a few days later. It is now widely believed in Harare that he went there to rescue his wayward son Robert, Jr, who allegedly faced drugs charges.

When Mugabe does die, Zanu-PF will have 90 days to convene an extraordinary congress and choose a successor to serve as president until the next election. It is unlikely to be a peaceful or democratic process. Vice-President Mnangagwa is thought to have the support of Constantine Chiwenga, the commander of the national defence forces, as well as most of the military hierarchy, the war vets and the state media, but the burning question is whether Grace Mugabe would dare to challenge him.

Variously named “DisGrace”, “Grasping Grace” or “Gucci Grace”, to reflect her extravagant foreign shopping trips, the first lady knows her power will evaporate once her husband dies, and she needs to protect her three children and enormous wealth. The Mugabes own 14 farms and she is said to take a cut of almost every big deal in Zimbabwe. “If you want anything business-wise here, you have to go and kneel before Grace,” one political analyst said.

She has options. She could flee the country; seek Mnangagwa’s protection in return for her support; back a surrogate candidate; or run herself.

In recent weeks she has ceased attacking Mnangagwa and distanced herself from G40. The vice-president’s allies suggest that the military has given her some sort of démarche. “Army commanders would have said: ‘You’re destroying the party from within. You’re becoming a security threat,’” a member of Mnangagwa’s entourage said.

“I’ve noticed a certain measure of silence. The reckless exuberance of the past is gone,” Christopher Mutsvangwa, the war vets’ leader, said. “Once someone knocks some sense into her about the aftermath of the morrow she will realise you don’t go against the state apparatus.”

That said, nobody is ruling Grace out. Zimbabweans detest her, and she has little standing within the party or the military because she did not fight in the liberation war – but those who know her describe her as “delusional”. As a prominent businessman who supports Mnangagwa told me: “She believes in her heart that the people love her, because in Zimbabwe we have ritual fawning.”

She could yet persuade her husband to undermine Mnangagwa in some way. She could try to whip up Shona clan tensions – the Mugabes are Zezurus while Mnangagwa is a Karanga. She could even announce that her husband had given her his blessing on his deathbed. But Mnangagwa’s supporters have little doubt what would happen if she did. “If Grace runs, the military will step in. They will go and brutalise her supporters,” the businessman said. “It would be nasty, very nasty.”

There are other possible candidates of lesser stature, and there would be a high risk of violence as rival camps sought to coerce local and regional party officials to support them. But for now, at least, Mnangagwa is the front-runner. And that, on the face of it, is bad news for Zimbabwe. “He is associated with all the darkest periods of our history,” Biti told me. A prominent human rights worker in Harare said: “He’s really, really bad. He’s toxic. He’s killed a lot of people.”

Mnangagwa does have a human side. He is a Methodist, a Chelsea supporter (because he adored Didier Drogba), and he has nine children by two wives – the first died of cancer in 2000 and the other is an MP. One son is a popular DJ; another serves in the presidential guard. But he is so hated by Zimbabweans that he twice failed to win a seat in parliament, Zanu-PF’s standard electoral practices notwithstanding. In 2000, thugs poured petrol over Blessing Chebundo, his MDC opponent in Kwekwe, and Chebundo survived only by clinging to one of his assailants. Later they torched his home.

Mnangagwa, who says he was born in 1942 (though many sources say 1946), was inspired to join the black nationalist movement when Mugabe taught in his village after returning from Ghana. He trained as a guerrilla in Egypt and China, blew up a locomotive near the Victoria Falls, and escaped execution only by claiming to be under 21. He spent a decade in prison instead. He was kept in solitary confinement for three years and tortured by the Ian Smith government. Hung upside down and beaten, he lost the hearing in his left ear. “My torture was so bad that if I talk about it I relive it, and my tears come down,” he told me during our interview.

He attended Mugabe’s prison classes, took O- and A-levels, and after his release he trained as a lawyer in Zambia before joining Mugabe in Mozambique. After independence, as the country’s chief of security and intelligence, he was widely believed to have orchestrated the Gukurahundi massacre, allegedly calling Nkomo’s Zapu supporters “cockroaches” and the Fifth Brigade the DDT that would eradicate them.

A UN report accused him of plundering diamonds when Zimbabwean troops intervened during the civil wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the late 1990s. In 2002 he seized a farm near Kwekwe whose owner, Koos Burger, told me in a telephone call from Florida that he sought political asylum in the US after receiving death threats. Mnangagwa is thought to have masterminded the theft of the 2008 presidential election, from which Morgan Tsvangirai was forced to withdraw in order to halt the slaughter of his supporters. Today he is said to control the lucrative gold industry in his home region, the Midlands, where he is known as “The Godfather”.

Mnangagwa denies such accusations. “How do I become the enforcer during Gukurahundi?” he asked me. “We had the president, the minister of defence, the commander of the army, and I was none of that. My own enemies attack me left and right and that is what you are buying.”

A Mnangagwa presidency might offer Zimbabwe one thing: economic recovery. He is sharp, organised and business-savvy; more pragmatic and less ideological than Mugabe. And, unlike the president, he understands the urgent need for reform, if only so that he can pay the security forces and fill the trough at which his Zanu-PF comrades guzzle. “For all his historical problems he understands the running of the economy better than Mugabe, better than most Zanu politicians,” David Coltart said.

In the course of our interview, Mnangagwa explained his plans for reviving the economy. He declared that “capital goes where it feels comfortable and warm, and if it’s cold it runs to a country which gives it better weather”. Mugabe, an avowed Marxist,
would never make such a statement. Mnangagwa spoke of the need for Zimbabwe to re-engage with the international community, stamp out corruption, revive agriculture and attract foreign investment. He also said that he wanted all the professionals who have left Zimbabwe – black and white – to return. His model is China, which he praises for the “discipline” that has transformed it from the backward country where he once trained as a guerrilla.

A few nights earlier I had listened to Mnangagwa giving the keynote speech at the annual awards dinner of Zimbabwe’s Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, at Harare’s plush Rainbow Towers Hotel. To my surprise, he quoted the New Testament’s parable of the talents, with its overtly capitalist creed.

“Mnangagwa is a brutal man, a hard man,” said the businessman who has extensive dealings with the regime. “He’s been involved in butchery and pillaging and everything else, but there’s no question in my mind that he’s pushing to reform Zimbabwe’s economy, and fighting against the inertia of Robert Mugabe, who believes any change is dangerous.”

Mnangagwa’s problem is that he lacks Mugabe’s aura, and most Zimbabweans know only of his reputation for brutality. As things stand, he could not possibly win a free and fair election. That is why, according to multiple sources, he is discreetly reaching out to Morgan Tsvangirai, Joice Mujuru and other opposition leaders with a view to forming some sort of coalition government after Mugabe’s death, and perhaps postponing the next election.

Such an arrangement would lend Mnangagwa legitimacy, appeal to international donors and buy him time to resuscitate the economy, so that Zanu-PF would not need to rig the next election too blatantly.

Whether Tsvangirai and Mujuru would agree to enter such a coalition is another matter. They might calculate that they could win even a rigged ballot if – a big “if” – they could agree on a single presidential candidate. For all his flaws, Tsvangirai remains Zimbabwe’s most popular politician, and Mujuru still has support within Zanu-PF.

On the other hand, the MDC is fractured, disorganised and short of money, and Tsvan­girai has colon cancer. Mujuru’s ZPF has barely got off the ground and its own senior members question her leadership abilities. Both might be tempted by offers of positions that would give Mujuru a way back to Zanu-PF and Tsvangirai the perks and privileges he cherishes (he still lives in the handsome official residence he occupied as prime minister during the unity government). “They’re not going to get power any other way,” said Derek Matyszak, a Harare lawyer and constitutional consultant.

Opposition activists would demand political as well as economic reforms in order to loosen Zanu-PF’s grip on power: a proper electoral roll, an end to patronage and intimidation of rural voters, a truly independent electoral commission, a free media and votes for Zimbabweans in the diaspora.

They would almost certainly be disappointed. When I asked Mnangagwa whether he saw the need for political reforms he replied that Zimbabweans had long ago secured what the British denied them: human rights and one man, one vote. A Mnangagwa supporter told me he might make token concessions, but “it’s all about the veneer of respectability rather than respectability”. Others invoked the example of President Paul Kagame, who has transformed Rwanda’s economy with the help of international financial institutions that choose to ignore his authoritarian excesses.

To activists such as Linda Masarire, it would be “totally unacceptable” for the opposition parties to join a coalition in such circumstances. “Even if the economy is revived, who will be the beneficiaries? It will be the same old people, the ones with political power who have been looting the country for the last 36 years,” she said.

Biti mocks the idea of Mnangagwa as a reformer of any sort. “No one can name any act of reform he’s ever carried out . . . He can’t start now. He’ll just tell you what you want to hear.” He added: “I don’t think anyone who’s committed crimes against humanity should lead us.”

But Mnangagwa has already won the tacit support of Zimbabwe’s business sector, as well as South Africa and China, all of which want stability. Western donors are also anxious to avoid Zimbabwe’s total disintegration. It’s a fair bet that ultimately they would choose pragmatism over principle and give Mnangagwa the bailout he would urgently need. They would probably ignore his
election-rigging provided it was discreet.

The businessman put it this way: “Maybe you don’t like Mnangagwa and his history, but you’re faced with a choice. Do you allow Zimbabwe to crash and burn and let its people suffer? Or do you try to negotiate a rescue so they have a future?”

Martin Fletcher is an NS contributing writer. His assignment in Zimbabwe was financed by the Pulitzer Centre on Crisis Reporting

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment